nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Pick pocket
Area transitions On servers where Pick Pocket is not forbidden, a pick pocket lock on from a PvP area to a non-PvP one, if maintained, always results in a successful pick pocket attempt. Example: You are fighting someone in a PvP area, and they attempt to flee into a non-PvP area through a transition. Before they do, you have clicked on pick pocket, clicked on them, and locked on (as in, the action shows as queued in the top left corner of your screen). You follow them through the transition (because of the lock), and when you appear in the non-pvp area, your pick pocket attempt rolls (regardless of how far away from they are at this point), and is automatically successful. Have tested repeatedly, and works every single time, regardless of the pick pocket DC. -- 17:29, 15 January 2008 Queries 1) I know that the amount of gold stolen in a pickpocket is equal to the modified roll against the target's DC. How does this work for items? Are they assessed at their toolkit value, or another value? 2) The article seems to indicate that the detect roll is made after the pickpocket roll, but I have had countless number of times when it was made before, even some that caused the pickpocket to be a failure simply because the target had just detected and gone hostile raising the DC by 10. How exactly do the two rolls interplay, as both rolls seem to use information from the other? Or is the spot roll instead made from a DC generated by a separate pickpocket roll from the one that stole? WhiZard 03:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Detect mode? Ran a test, Hostile NPC with 40 ranks in Spot (Detect mode OFF) The NPC managed to Spot a DC 62 Pick Pocket attempt. Pick Pocket does not appear to be affected by the Detect Mode penalty (which effectively halves your Spot/Listen check results). EDIT: I redid the test with a running NPC. Standing/Running does not seem to affect this, either. If the Spot check were halved the maximum result would be 10 (die) + 20 (half rank) + 10 = 40, but the NPC managed to beat a result of 60 while running. I noticed some additional things about pickpocketing while running this test: # Gold is pickpocketed regardless of whether or not it is marked pickpocketable in an NPC's inventory. # Being spotted by an opponent causes a ~1 second animation to play before the pickpocket action. Causing the pickpocketer to chase after the target if they are out of range (distance?). When not spotted the pickpocket is instantaneous, making it impossible for the target to escape. # Item weight is not a factor when selecting an item for pickpocketing. (Which leads to hilarious results when a 500 lb item is pickpocketed.) # Identification is not a factor when targetting items (which raises questions about whether or not item value is a factor, because the bioware GetGoldPieceValue function returns 1 gp for unidentified items) 23:09, September 2, 2009 (UTC) FuzzyOne * It's not surprising that detect mode is not checked for this — that would require BioWare to remember to check that mode when this part was coded, and they've forgotten elsewhere. Running should not affect the check, as running has no impact on any skill checks. (You cannot run while in detect mode, but there is no direct link between running and skills.) Also: :# Gold is stored as a data field on the NPC, rather than as an item in the NPC's inventory. So ignoring the pickpocketable field is not surprising. Possibly a bug, but not surprising. :# Interesting. I suppose the animation gets suppressed when not spotted because no one is supposed to see it. :) :# No one said item weight was a factor. :# I see no reason an item should not be pickpocketable simply because it is unidentified. And no one said item value is a factor. :Some people have scripted restrictions to make pick pocket make more sense (as with restricting the weight of the item), but the default implementation has no restrictions that were not mentioned. Whether those restrictions were overlooked or deemed not worth the effort, I don't know. (The game is intentionally not balanced for PvP, and BioWare might have decided to rely on the module builder to not flag any heavy items as pickpocketable.) In any case, it's generally not a good idea to assume there is a restriction that is not documented somewhere. --The Krit 10:47, September 24, 2009 (UTC) Pickpocketing Equipped Items I have added several notes based on testing I have done. I have not tested if someone's weapon can be stolen by first using Disarm to move it to inventory, then Pick Pocket to steal it, so if anyone else wants to do that testing, I think it would be an interesting note to add to this article. BCH (talk) 21:44, July 8, 2013 (UTC) * According to disarm, which is based on talk:improved disarm#Non-droppable_weapons, you cannot use disarm to move the weapon to inventory (unless you meant your own inventory, in which case pocket picking is moot). But other than that, I don't see why your combo would fail. --The Krit (talk) 01:35, July 10, 2013 (UTC) :* Ah, I was confused. I thought that Disarm would either move a weapon to the ground or to the possessor's inventory, based on something like the Difficulty Setting. This was either wishful thinking on my part, or a remnant of something else I read, or (most likely) the result of me having recently done work on my module's Beblith Ruin Armor script, which allows for the option to unequip. BCH (talk) 02:00, July 10, 2013 (UTC) Please don't make me people want to leave Wow. The Krit, by deleting or re-writing virtually everything I contributed to this page, you've completely crushed the sensation that I had contributed something to this wiki, and replaced it with gnawing frustration. You have caused me to want to avoid contributing anything here again. In your pursuit of terseness, I believe you are inadvertently causing obfuscation. If a person adds a sentence to a page, and you remove most or all of it because you think the information was already adequately covered, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that the information, while technically present, is not present in a form that is clear enough to a wide enough range of people. At the very least, if a person makes such an edit, that is a clear indication that particular person did not see that particular information. If a document does not properly inform some of the people who read it, far better to change the document than to hope to change the people. Is it your intent to make this wiki useful only to people above a certain level of intelligence? With fluent English, and a certain grasp of logical connection of data? Or do you want to make it as accessible as possible to as many people as possible? If accessibility is a goal of any sort here, a certain amount of redundancy is not only necessary, but good for understanding. Stating a fact more than one way, and in more than one place, is a very helpful and useful technique to foster understanding. It would also reduce your workload if you could find it in your heart to leave people's edits in place, if they are not actually stating falsehoods or posting mathematical errors. Information that is true can be allowed to be redundant without serious repercussions. Also, if you had left my edits alone, I would still be willing to contribute to this wiki, instead of throwing my hands up in frustration. -- BCH (talk) 04:52, August 1, 2013 (UTC) * What? You've lost the sensation that you have contributed something to this wiki? After adding that gold can be pickpocketed? That gold can be pickpocketed only if the target has some? That the amount of gold that can be obtained equals the skill check? That if a target has no items or gold to take then the player is told so? That the spot check is resolved before the pick pocket check? That pick pocket can be used only once per round? That items worn on the body are not inside a backpack? That item stacks are stolen as a whole? That items containing other items cannot be stolen? That items inside other items are not immune to pick pocket? That detection of pick pocket cancels stealth mode? That this canceling of stealth mode does not also cancel invisibility? Contributing ~75% of the current notes is of no merit simply because they are not in your words? : Wikis are places for collaborative efforts, which means anything and everything you contribute is subject to improvement by someone else. If you cannot handle that, then maybe you shouldn't be contributing to one (perhaps a blog would be more suitable). If all you can see are the negatives, you're just going to experience growing frustration. On the other hand, if you look for the positives, you might find more value in producing a valuable resource than in attacking complaining about others. : Speaking of attacking others complaining , one of the things I enjoy about editing a wiki is taking what is there and making it better. You object to that. Basically, you are saying that virtually everything I''' have contributed to this page is worthless, which by your logic should leave me crushed and running away. Is that really what you want to do to someone else? --The Krit (talk) 01:40, August 2, 2013 (UTC) :* '-- (wiki keeps trying to put my reply between your two paragraphs) --' :: The Krit, what I wrote was merely a complaint, not an attack. What I posted in the Pick Pocket page was neither incorrect nor misleading, and did not need to be redacted. I'm disappointed you did not address any of my concerns about accessibility, nor display anything but disdain for the emotional experience I described to you, nor did you "Assume Good Faith" regarding what I wrote, but instead you replied instead with sarcasm, insulting accusations, and Straw Men. I assumed you would dismiss my complaint (as you have done before), but I am quite surprised to see you respond with such vitriol. -- BCH (talk) 02:36, August 2, 2013 (UTC) ::* You want to call it "complaint" instead of "attack"? Fine, I've edited that into my earlier comment. It does not change my point. I have not addressed specific edits to the article because your major point -- based on it appearing first and occupying the majority of your comments -- is complaining about me. I chose to address one issue at a time, so why not the major one? People see sarcasm and insults when they want to, and there is little I have been able to do about that. Any "straw men" you see in what I wrote are not straw men but reflections of my understanding of what you wrote. If the reflection is not what you meant, then communication failed somewhere. --The Krit (talk) 12:42, August 3, 2013 (UTC) :::* I'm satisfied to let this conversation end here, as I don't see anything likely to change as a result of it. The Krit, your selectiveness in what you respond to and what you ignore, and how you do so, speaks volumes about you. You remain the proverbial Eight Hundred Pound Gorilla of this wiki, and with that greater power comes greater responsibility to everyone else who uses this wiki, especially (but not limited to) ensuring that your opinions and mistakes (everyone makes them) are not enshrined as policy. I have a great respect for '''other work you've done - I've been using your creature palette override, Naming Quill, and A Better Craft Magic for years - but I'm quite sure you are a lousy document writer and an even worse editor, so that respect does not translate into kowtowing. -- BCH (talk) 17:54, August 3, 2013 (UTC) :::::* Been following this dialog involving a new contributor attempting to express his/her own ideas and experiences on a single topic. Finally decided to inject a general note pertaining to how The Krit handles suspect contributions, with the term suspect meaning any addition which may or may not be completely accurate. If inappropriate... apologies. I am not trying to interrupt a private dialogue. ::::::What you (BCH) could try to understand is the scope of what TK is constantly striving to achieve on THIS wiki... as accurate, structured and clear information that can be described for the average reader to digest. Not an easy undertaking especially considering the vastness of the game idiosyncrasies and insane number of contributions. True, TK must command a level of authority, based mainly on the innate position he assumes (and incidentally, on a purely volunteer basis). But that stance has provided one of the most comprehensive and reliable game-related wikis around... and I defy anyone to find one for any game aged 10 years or more which retains its pertinence in the gaming community. ::::::BCH, you are not the only contributor who has responded in a defensive manner to having their own words altered or editorialized. Actually, it's a fairly common reaction for new authors. I include myself in that group. But the defensive posture is quite counter-productive. Not only does it force TK to try to find the words to resolve your concerns, but it won't really help you to understand TK's focus while postponing the inevitable meeting of minds. Rather than focusing on discrediting his input, your time would be better served choosing a single point of contention, resolving that issue with dialog and then progressing to the next point, rinsing and repeating as needed. This procedure works not only in electronic messaging but in business communications in general.(If you've spent any amount of time in board meetings I am sure you will agree on this point.) ::::::TK needs no defense of his actions or position. My comments are being submitted merely to cast another perspective on your negotiation methodology, one which may be improved to be beneficial not only here but in other aspects of social interactivity. I hope it is received in the spirit I intended. Hang in there. I suspect you have some worthwhile contributions once the self-imposed roadblocks have been eliminated. --Iconclast (talk) 05:01, August 9, 2013 (UTC) ::::* That's partially good — good to end the parts of this conversation consisting of whining/complaining about me. Critiquing another person really is not appropriate here, and it tends to be rather unproductive and divisive, as you have now experienced. I probably should have cracked down on you when you started discussing people instead of articles, but that might have been seen as being an "800 lb gorilla", so I took a different approach. --The Krit (talk) 04:07, August 8, 2013 (UTC) * So maybe the personal attacks (or "complaints" for anyone who thinks complaints are not hostile) are done and we could turn to the article? Who knows, but it might be worth a try. I'll start with the mentions of "target has no items or gold." This was mentioned twice on the page before I edited it down to a single mention. What is so special about this phrase that it warrants being mentioned twice? I don't even see a reason to mention it once. If someone sees this message in the game, it is rather self-explanatory (unless the player forgot they used pick pocket, but then the player would not be checking this article anyway). If someone is curious about what happens when pick pocket is used, then they can learn that there is feedback when using this ability, but that is normal – most actions have feedback as to their results. Feedback is such a widespread aspect of the game that I would find it rather surprising if there was not a message covering a successful pick pocket when there is nothing to steal. So I propose striking the note mentioning "target has no items or gold". --The Krit (talk) 04:19, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Full dice The summary of revision 63836 by : "removed part that states the spot is always full dice+rank - then explain me that i get spotted at 65pickpocket roll but not at 62" The explanation could be rather simple. Perhaps the spotter had a spot skill of 50 and got a 17 on the first d20 roll, and an 11 on the second. That would be full dice (d20) and rank (50). Not-full dice and rank would be d10+25 (the usual effect of not being in detect mode), which would never succeed at checks with a DC above 60. (The part that got removed was not saying that the spotter got to take 20.)--The Krit (talk) 01:53, August 22, 2013 (UTC)